Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is.
I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Evolutionism: A theory(?) built & sustained by ignorance & deception

Let's look at the "theory of evolution". Charles Darwin didn't originate the idea of evolution however he did make it popular. And allegedly he gave it a mechanism- Natural Selection. However history tells us that others before him already published on the idea of Natural Selection, meaning Charles "borrowed" the idea. Charles was even chastised for not giving credit where credit was due. The deception had begun.

Charles also thought the cell was a "blob or glob of protoplasm" as that was the current thinking of his day. IOW due to the constraints of their technology scientists were virtually ignorant of the contents of living cells.

It was easy to make up scientific sounding stories because no one knew any better. Today we do.

Today we know there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. However there is plenty of faith that at some time in the past bacteria-like organisms did indeed "evolve" into a more complex single-celled population (the alleged "evolution" of eukaryotes), which then magically colonized (or not) and differentiated.

Heredity was empirically demonstrated by a Creationist Monk. Promoters of Darwin's ideas took Mendel's findings and twisted them to fit their PoV. What Mendel demonstrated is that traits can vary- traits, as in the color of your eyes, hair, your height. IOW even though humans vary significantly in outward appearance, ie traits, they are still human. (Accumulating mutations may give us a short, blue-eyed, anemic (SCA), red-head with detached ear-lobes…)

Variations of an already existing population does not explain the origin of the population.

Now, when we look at the several meanings of evolution, the deception is clearer:

The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

So why is it used? Because evolutionists want to pretend that any alternative to their precious "theory" is that absolutely nothing changes. IOW ANY change at all is evidence for evo #6. The thinking is that those small changes accumulate to eventually equal the alleged great transformations (as presented in the PBS series "Evolution" show 2).

If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).

Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.

One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a "black box" and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What's more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.

In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn't understand evolution.

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

Ignorance is evolutionism's best tool. Evolutionitwits somehow use the "power of ignorance" to influence the social-political dynamic of some of the otherwise greatest countries on this planet. Sorry guys but "science" done via promissory notes is not science at all. Once people understand the debate your gig is up. I take it that is why evolutionitwits ALWAYS revert to personal attacks and other diversionary tactics- such as table pounding:

"When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table." (unsure of the origin)

Take a single bacterium and allow it to reproduce into a colony of clones. Once in a while, a mutation will occur. Some of these mutations will confer resistance to antibiotics. This will happen regardless of whether the environment includes antibiotics.

If, however, the environment includes antibiotics, then certain strains within the population will have an advantage over others. This will cause the allele (gene) frequency of the population to change. This is defined as evolution and is consistent with predictions of the Theory of Evolution.

There is a strain of bacteria that was discovered in a wastewater pond at a plastic manufacturing plant that allowed the bacteria to 'eat' nylon. As nylon does not occur in nature, this is a novel adaptation. Genetic analysis indicates that the adaptation was the result of a frame-shift mutation. Selection made it such that it became the dominant strain.

Try not to conflate evolution, defined as the change in allele frequencies in populations, with the Theory of Common Descent.

Of course selection involves the environment! However, mutation is random with respect to adaptation. These are the fundamental observations of modern evolutionary science — mutation and selection.

joe g: "I take it you didn't read the article I linked to pertaining to anti-biotic resistance."

Of course I did. Natural populations include wide variations. That's why I pointed out the Lederbergs experiments with clonal populations.

joe g: "Also defining 'evolution' as just a change in gene frequencies just adds to the deception factor."

That is the modern scientific definition of evolution. By using precise terminology, it allows for more accurate statements. It is important to clearly distinguish between the observed facts of evolution and the Theory of Evolution which explains those facts.

joe g: "Definitely has all the ear-marks of 'built-in response to environmental cues'."

It has been determined that the adaptation was due to a frame-shift mutation, a random occurrence in replication, a process that can be readily observed with modern techniques. Most mutations are neutral in most environments. This is clearly shown in the Lederbergs' Experiment.

joe g: "I wonder how Lederberg's conclusions apply to this? To me this would refute that inference."

joe g: "Also defining 'evolution' as just a change in gene frequencies just adds to the deception factor."

Zach:That is the modern scientific definition of evolution.

And again "evolution" isn't being debated. Try to follow along.

joe g: "Definitely has all the ear-marks of 'built-in response to environmental cues'."

Zach:It has been determined that the adaptation was due to a frame-shift mutation, a random occurrence in replication, a process that can be readily observed with modern techniques. Most mutations are neutral in most environments. This is clearly shown in the Lederbergs' Experiment.

Dr. Spetner discussing mutations:

"The motion of these genetic elements to produce the above mutations has been found to a complex process and we probably haven’t yet discovered all the complexity. But because no one knows why they occur, many geneticists have assumed they occur only by chance. I find it hard to believe that a process as precise and well controlled as the transposition of genetic elements happens only by chance. Some scientists tend to call a mechanism random before we learn what it really does. If the source of the variation for evolution were point mutations, we could say the variation is random. But if the source of the variation is the complex process of transposition, then there is no justification for saying that evolution is based on random events."

The bottom-line is that no one knows what makes an organism what it is:

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

joe g: I didn't say otherwise. Why can't you just answer the question?

That was an answer. If differential reproduction can be brought about by exposure to antibiotics in a population of bacteria, then artificial selection can be induced by exposing the bacteria to antibiotics.

--

Zachiel: However, mutation is random with respect to adaptation.

joe g: We don't know that is true. ESpecially given what we do know about some mutations.

This fact of biology can be easily demonstrated by replicating a number of experiments, including the Lederbergs Experiment with clonal bacteria.

--joe g: Lederberg only applies to that population in the experiment.

Apparently, it applies to every population of clonal bacteria ever tried. And its been tried many, many times. I would be happy to provide additional cites.

--

joe g: "Also defining 'evolution' as just a change in gene frequencies just adds to the deception factor."

Zachiel: That is the modern scientific definition of evolution.

joe g: And again "evolution" isn't being debated. Try to follow along.

Then use the proper term, Common Descent. But that is not the issue I raised.

Start with the basic ascertainable facts. Mutations are random with respect to adaptation creating novel variations within populations. Heritable characteristics change with time in response to the environment.

The Luria-Delbruck experiment (1943) used a statistical test to show that mutations occurred in the absense of selection, and statistical analysis showed that adaptation was due to a constant rate of random mutations.

"Nevertheless, there is no directed mutagenesis: only those mutations that allow the cells to respond to the environmental stress accumulate in a growing population" (Slechta et al. 2002).

ID is not anti-common descent. As I have stated many times the debate is all about the mechanism.

However it should be noted that not one person can provide any data that would demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria.

BTW experiments from 5-6 decades ago are hardly relavent especially when scientists like Barry Hall (who Ken Miller cites in an attempt to refute IC) demonstrate that adaptive mutations are likely. Then there is Shapiro's take on the nylon eating bacteria. IOW today's scientists have over-ridden those earlier attempts.

BTW artificial selection should never be confused with natural selection. Artificial selection is an example of ID.

joe g: "ID is not anti-common descent. As I have stated many times the debate is all about the mechanism."

Accepting common descent.

Now, as to mechanism. It is known that all new traits are ad hoc modifications of existing traits, and that the evolution of these traits also form a nested hierarchy.

joe g: "However it should be noted that not one person can provide any data that would demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria."

It's hard to know what you would except as a demonstration, as the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields of study readily accept the evidence and have expanded human knowledge of the processes substantially. If you expect a bacteria to evolve into a mouse in the lab, then you will be disappointed. This process is posited to have taken hundreds-of-millions of years. Besides, then you would just revert to your strawman that this would be 'artificial'.

Darwin proposed Common Descent to explain the patterns found in biology and the succession of fossils. He predicted microevolution. Since Darwin's time, genetic mutation, genomic content, natural selection, contingency, have all been directly observed. Other mechanisms of evolutionary change have also been observed, including genetic drift (in accordance with the Hardy-Weinberg Equation).

"However it should be noted that not one person can provide any data that would demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria."

Exactly when are "evolved" bacteria no longer bacteria? In what way would they have to be different from bacteria to qualify as not being bacteria. You need to make that quite clear, otherwise when someone points out modified bacteria as an example, you will just say "OK, they are modified bacteria, but they are still bacteria. Micro-evolution, that's all".

"However it should be noted that not one person can provide any data that would demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria."

Raevmo asks:Exactly when are "evolved" bacteria no longer bacteria?

A cellular nucleus is the key.

And one more time- we DO NOT know what makes an organism what it is. Until we do it is premature to say that one population can "evolve" into another. And throwing time at something is not scientific at all but it appears THAT is all evolutionists have. IOW from the rsponses I have read the theory of evolution does not qualify as scientific.

BTW Zach Giuseppe Sermonti is a geneticist and the editor of a peer-reviewed journal.

From DR. Behe:

"Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." "

Still waiting for the data which would demonstrate that bacteria can "evolve" into some other type of organism that isn't bacteria.

The point being is if that cannot be provided then the theory of evolution is NOT built on scientific data or data of any sort. Rather it is faith-based and as such does not belong in a science classroom.

So ID can't explain the observations of the fossil succession, the nested hierarchy of extant and extinct life, the nested hierarchy of genomes. It can't explain variation and selection. It can't explain the biogeographical distribution of species, the change in allele frequencies in populations under selection, why structures which create mineral regulating gills in fish also produce mineral regulating glands in mammals, the predicted placement in specific strata of intermediate fossils, the evolution of disease and pest organisms, the evolution of domestic breeds, the extinction of life, the dinosaurs. Nor does ID make specific *predictions* of observable phenemona.

In other words, Intelligent Design is scientifically vacuous. It is a falsehood that uses scientific language to support a political agenda.

The early evolution of eukaryotes is still only partly understood, though current evidence strongly indicates endosymbiosis. Try to start with something simple, like the Common Descent of eukaryotes or vertebrates.

As the evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution is vast and spans many fields of study from geology to biology to genetics to embryonics, I would recommend a forum with more bandwidth such as the newsgroup talk.origins. Put my name anywhere in the body of the post, and I will respond in more detail there.

You're right that our ignorance about the evolution of eukaryotes is quite deep. Check out this recent review in Nature which admits as much:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/pdf/nature04546.pdf

(I can mail the paper if you like)

Does this ignorance disqualify evolutionary biology as a science? I don't think so. All sciences are in their infancy in the sense that what is unknown dwarfs what is known.

Common descent is (almost, if you like) a proven fact. How it happened is to a large extent an open question. We know that selection can explain short-term evolution because we have observed it. In the absence of other scientific theories, it's reasonable to extrapolate from that. Are you saying that ID is "more scientific"?

Why the conspiracy theory about "deception"? Do you honestly belief that thousands of biologists are conspiring to deceive the public about the "real reason" behind biological diversity? What would be the motive?

Common descent is almost a proven fact? Sure if common descent is limited to a certain population. However if you what you mean by common descent is that all organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms- well that is far from factual and far from being "proven".

As I have already stated we don't even know what makes an organism what it is. Evolutionists (and perhaps all believers of common descent) rely on DNA being the carrier of all the information an organism requires. But there are already indicators that is not so- meaning DNA is not solely responsible for making an organism what it is.

Zach:Common Descent is supported by a wide variety of evidence, including the fossil succession.

That is the general assertion. However it appears that reality demonstrates that assertion cannot be scientifically tested.

joe g: "ID is not anti-special creation either."

Zach:So ID can't explain the observations of the fossil succession, the nested hierarchy of extant and extinct life, the nested hierarchy of genomes.

Funny over 95% of the fossil record does not support common descent. Common descent doesn't explain nested hierarchies, it accomodates it. Nested hierarchies can be explained by a common design.

Zach:It can't explain variation and selection.

ID is OK with variation and selection. Special creation is OK with variation and selection.

Zach: It can't explain the biogeographical distribution of species, the change in allele frequencies in populations under selection, why structures which create mineral regulating gills in fish also produce mineral regulating glands in mammals, the predicted placement in specific strata of intermediate fossils, the evolution of disease and pest organisms, the evolution of domestic breeds, the extinction of life, the dinosaurs. Nor does ID make specific *predictions* of observable phenemona.

Zach I have 5 seconds. That should be more than enough time for you to tell me everything you know about ID (from your posts it appears you know or understand very little).

I will post on talk origins when someone provides the data which demonstrates that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Until that time any discussion with evolutionists is a waste of bandwidth.

"Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Henry Scaeffer, director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the Univ. of Georgia.

In fact, Common descent is tested every time a new species, extinct or extant, is discovered. Here is a typical example of prediction in paleontology:

Donald Johanson knew that many organisms had already been discovered that were intermediary between humans and other apes, hominids. He was interested in finding the earliest possible example in the divergence of humans. He went to Africa, looked for specific strata 3¼ million years old, and found a new species, Australopithecus afarensis.

This species has a brain size, leg-arm ratio, hand, stance, and other specific anatomical characteristics that are intermediate between non-human apes and hominids. Other speciments have been found, always in the same strata, always in Africa. Lucky guess.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html

Now, using the so-called theory of Common Design, please make a similar prediction, and we'll check the fossil record. I have my notebook and magnifying glass at the ready.

joe g: "Funny over 95% of the fossil record does not support common descent."

Simply false. Waving your hands does not make the succession of fossils disappear.

joe g: "Common descent doesn't explain nested hierarchies, it accomodates it. Nested hierarchies can be explained by a common design."

Sorry, but the only known designer (humanity) violates the nested hierarchy at will. Metazoan life forms a clear nested hierarchy, with the emphasis on *nested*. This unique nesting is a hallmark of common descent, and a clear indicator against the hypothesis of common design examples of which always show crossing of lineages.

There is a reason why the existence of mammary glands predicts the number of ear bones. The pattern in genomes that indicates common descent is the same pattern that allows one to trace their family's genealogical history.

joe g: "That should be more than enough time for you to tell me everything you know about ID"

I am fully aware of the claims of Intelligent Design. Simply, the claim that patterns in biology can be used to detect design. To support this contention, they must ignore the vast troves of scientific findings from multiple fields of study, ignore the data with a wave of the hand. Just as you have ignored the evidence.

Intelligent Design is a falsehood diguised in the language of science. It is an argument from ignorance, a fallacy, much like the claims of the past that because there was no known mechanism to explain the intricacies and complexities of planetary motions, they must be pushed on crystals spheres by angels of God.

But then, anything can be explained by vague appeals to magic. If it's not magic, please tell us about the ID "scientists" who are doing research into the common design of (among other things)nested hierarchies, and give us some citations.Oh, wait a minute--there isn't any such research, is there?

Joe G quote: "I will post on talk origins when someone provides the data which demonstrates that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Until that time any discussion with evolutionists is a waste of bandwidth."

Hi Joe, you have made this statement many times, and therefore it seems this is the main evidence you need to see to be satisfied that evolution is worth talking about.

On the other hand you seem to accept that evolution happens in the sense that over time life forms on the planet can change, but you only accept this within its own species or within that individual type of life form - ie. you do not believe there is evidence that demonstrates that one life form can evolve into another.

How about this just as food for thought....

a) On the basis that there is no artificial timeframe in which a species/life form suddenly stops changing, is it not possible, based on what is already known about how life forms can change, that over several millions of years, two groups of the same life form that have diverged geographically could continue to change and ultimately end up looking like different species due to the differing requirements of their environments?

b) Even if evolutionists prove that bacteria can change into something else to your satisfaction, why does this in some way validate evolution? We already know that things can change over time and on that basis our design must include the ability to change based on the influences of our environment. Therefore there must come a time over several million years where the changes are enough to warrant a re-classification as a separate life form. However, I do see this as mutually exclusive to design as clearly our design includes the ability for life forms to change.

I accept that the principles described above make one key assumption - that life forms have been on the planet for millions of years and not thousands, but I have not heard about any scientific evidence that demonstrates that life on earth has only been around for 10,000 years, or some such relatively short timeframe.

"Common descent is almost a proven fact? Sure if common descent is limited to a certain population. However if you what you mean by common descent is that all organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms- well that is far from factual and far from being "proven"."

Oh please. The phylogenetic trees based on DNA similarities and fossiles are totally consistent with common descent. Just like trees based on similarities between languages can reconstruct the evolutionary history of human languages. Of course one might argue that the branching points in the trees are not the result of RM+NS+GD but of design, but so what? That doesn't disprove CD.

Joe:

"As I have already stated we don't even know what makes an organism what it is."

Whatever that means.

Joe:

"Evolutionists (and perhaps all believers of common descent) rely on DNA being the carrier of all the information an organism requires. But there are already indicators that is not so- meaning DNA is not solely responsible for making an organism what it is."

Evolutionists are perfectly aware of that. They call it epigenetic inheritance. How does this undermine CD? By the way, I thought IDists accepted CD. What gives?

So when people design something they are using magic? That is just plain stupid.

JW:If it's not magic, please tell us about the ID "scientists" who are doing research into the common design of (among other things)nested hierarchies, and give us some citations.

Why don't YOU tell us about the scientists doing the research to determine if bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Or how about the scientists doing the research that would demonstrate a pop. of land animals can "evolve" into a pop. of aquatic animals?

Joe said:"Common descent is almost a proven fact? Sure if common descent is limited to a certain population. However if you what you mean by common descent is that all organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms- well that is far from factual and far from being "proven"."

Raevmo:Oh please. The phylogenetic trees based on DNA similarities and fossiles are totally consistent with common descent.

That is the assertion. However it can't be scientifically tested. Also that same genetic data is consistent with a common design.

The fossil record doesn't support common descent- that is if you look at the whole FR.

Joe:"As I have already stated we don't even know what makes an organism what it is."

Raevmo:Whatever that means.

I have explained it several times- once in this thread:

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

Joe:

"Evolutionists (and perhaps all believers of common descent) rely on DNA being the carrier of all the information an organism requires. But there are already indicators that is not so- meaning DNA is not solely responsible for making an organism what it is."

Raevmo:Evolutionists are perfectly aware of that. They call it epigenetic inheritance. How does this undermine CD?

IF it is mutations to the DNA that is the "cause" of the morphological change required (to get from single-celled organisms to the diversity we observe) but changes to the DNA do not and cannot afford such changes, then the whole theory is in deep sh!t.

Raevmo: By the way, I thought IDists accepted CD. What gives?

Some accept it because I guess tey don't care. Others, like myself, are waiting for the biological and genetic data that would demonstrate such a thing is even remotely possible.

Joe G quote: "I will post on talk origins when someone provides the data which demonstrates that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. Until that time any discussion with evolutionists is a waste of bandwidth."

Richard H:Hi Joe, you have made this statement many times, and therefore it seems this is the main evidence you need to see to be satisfied that evolution is worth talking about.

Hi Richard- Yes if "evolution" can't even get started, what is there to discuss? ;)

Richard H:On the other hand you seem to accept that evolution happens in the sense that over time life forms on the planet can change, but you only accept this within its own species or within that individual type of life form - ie. you do not believe there is evidence that demonstrates that one life form can evolve into another.

I "accept" what can be scientifically demonstrated, tested and verified.

Richaed H:How about this just as food for thought....

a) On the basis that there is no artificial timeframe in which a species/life form suddenly stops changing, is it not possible, based on what is already known about how life forms can change, that over several millions of years, two groups of the same life form that have diverged geographically could continue to change and ultimately end up looking like different species due to the differing requirements of their environments?

b) Even if evolutionists prove that bacteria can change into something else to your satisfaction, why does this in some way validate evolution? We already know that things can change over time and on that basis our design must include the ability to change based on the influences of our environment. Therefore there must come a time over several million years where the changes are enough to warrant a re-classification as a separate life form. However, I do see this as mutually exclusive to design as clearly our design includes the ability for life forms to change.

True- mine is more of a common descent argument.

Richard H:I accept that the principles described above make one key assumption - that life forms have been on the planet for millions of years and not thousands, but I have not heard about any scientific evidence that demonstrates that life on earth has only been around for 10,000 years, or some such relatively short timeframe.

joe g: "So when people design something they are using magic? That is just plain stupid."

Human design consciously violates the nested hierarchy. That's one of the salient traits of design. On the other hand, the nested hierarchy is exactly the distribution we expect from common descent.

joe g: "Throwing father time at an issue is not scientific."

Not knowing exactly what your assertions are makes it difficult to respond. Geologists, astronomers and other scientists in relevant fields of study agree the Earth is billions of years old, and that life has existed for most of this time.

Do you understand how the scientific method works? First observe some aspect of the natural world. Propose a reasoned generalization about those observations, the hypothesis. Make a prediction from that hypothesis. Make the required observations. Refine, modify or discard the hypothesis as required. Publish so that your scientiic peers can replicate, criticize and extend your findings. Repeat.

The existence of dinosaur fossils are facts. The correlation between having mammary glands and three ear bones is a fact. The nested hierarchy of endogenous retroviruses is a fact. The homologies of microbiology are facts.

The Theory of Evolution makes specific predictions concerning observable phenomena. Darwin observed the nested hierarchy and the succession of fossils. From this, he predicted that life changed slowly over time and proposed mechanisms of this change. He could not observe microevolution. He predicted it.

Since then, the Theory of Evolution has undergone vast changes in light of scientific advances. However, the Theory of Common Descent has been verified by countless observations from multiple fields of study, including the predicted observation of microevolution. Every fossil. Every geological study. Every new species. Every new genome sequenced. Everything from the ankle bones of the common ancestor of whales and hippos, to the homologies of vertebrate embryos confirms predictions of the Theory of Evolution.

joe g: "Common descent doesn't explain nested hierarchies, it accomodates it. Nested hierarchies can be explained by a common design."

Zach:Sorry, but the only known designer (humanity) violates the nested hierarchy at will.

Sorry but humans are not the only known designers and all designers can also choose to form nested hierarchies. Heck humans can form nested hierarchies out of objects that don't have a relationship via common descent.

joe g: "That should be more than enough time for you to tell me everything you know about ID"

Zach:I am fully aware of the claims of Intelligent Design.

Really? Perhaps you can start demonstrating this alleged knowledge.

ZAch: Simply, the claim that patterns in biology can be used to detect design.

That is simply false. ID is not limited to biology as "The Privileged Planet" demonstrates.

Zach:To support this contention, they must ignore the vast troves of scientific findings from multiple fields of study, ignore the data with a wave of the hand.

I have asked for the data and you haven't provided it. IOW there isn't any scientific finding that demonstrates that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. Therefor there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity is due to those type of processes.

Zach:Just as you have ignored the evidence.

What evidence have I ignored?

Zach:Intelligent Design is a falsehood diguised in the language of science.

ID is the best explanation for what we observe.

Zach:It is an argument from ignorance, a fallacy, much like the claims of the past that because there was no known mechanism to explain the intricacies and complexities of planetary motions, they must be pushed on crystals spheres by angels of God.

As I have shown it is the theory of evolution that depends on ignorance. ID is fashioned by what we do know.

joe g: "So when people design something they are using magic? That is just plain stupid."

Zach:Human design consciously violates the nested hierarchy.

Sure it can, but it doesn't have to and most times it doesn't. Just look at cars or furniture.

Zach:That's one of the salient traits of design.

It is also a trait of design to reuse that which works. IOW designers know they don't have to design everything from scratch.

Zach: On the other hand, the nested hierarchy is exactly the distribution we expect from common descent.

That is false:

The pattern of descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost. Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them. (ReMine, 343.)Evolution does not predict a hierarchical pattern. Simple processes of loss, replacement, anagenesis, transposition, unmasking, or multiple biogenesis would prohibit such a pattern. Since hierarchical patterns (such as cladograms or phenograms) are not predicted by evolution they are not evidence for evolution. (ReMine, 444.)

Zach:Not knowing exactly what your assertions are makes it difficult to respond.

Then perhaps you should try to follow along. I know that is not a strong suit of evolutionists but at least you can try.

Zach:Geologists, astronomers and other scientists in relevant fields of study agree the Earth is billions of years old, and that life has existed for most of this time.

Relevant fields? Don't you realize that how the Earth was formed effects what "age" we would attribute to it?

But I digress. You just can't throw time at any issue- no matter how much time- and expect it to be scientific.

Can CD be objectively tested? No. Can it be repeated? No. (it can be but only on a very small scale)

And seeing that there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time I would say that the theory of evolution can't make any predictions, just accomodations.Science asks 3 basic questions

2. How does it work? A geologist comparing the effects of time on moon rocks to the effects of time on earth rocks, the nuclear physicist observing the behavior of particles, the marine biologist observing whales swimming, and the paleontologist studying the locomotion of an extinct dinosaur, “How does it work?”

3. How did it come to be this way?Each of these scientists tries to reconstruct the histories of their objects of study. Whether these objects are rocks, elementary particles, marine organisms, or fossils, scientists are asking, “How did it come to be this way?”

There is no such thing as “THE Scientific Method.”If you go to science fairs or read scientific journals, you may get the impression that science is nothing more than “question-hypothesis-procedure-data-conclusions.”

But this is seldom the way scientists actually do their work. Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom “concludes” and never “proves.”

Homology was refuted decades ago by Gavin de Beer in "Homology: An Unsolved Problem".

Ya see take a look at your arms and legs. Both very similar- iow they are homologs. Yet no one argues that arms "evolved" from legs or legs "evolved" from arms.

Considerations in Earlier Years I empathized with this student because in the spring of 1947 when I was a freshman taking my first semester of zoology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, I had a similar experience. My professor, Gilbert L. Woodside, a Harvard–trained embryology Ph.D. and then a leader in this field, presented to our class the embryology argument for evolution. Usually this concept is called recapitulation because the developing embryo is assumed to “summarize” or “epitomize” the entire history of its race. When certain embryonic observations are presented in a convincing way, the argument compels acceptance of a macroevolutionary sequence of animal or plant species. I recall thinking after that class, “How could anybody possibly doubt evolution when they understand this evidence?”

I was driven to know more biology, and so I switched my major from psychology to zoology, taking physiology and entomology in my sophomore year. I had become a Christian while in the Navy before my collegiate education, but after two years at the university my Christian beliefs were being challenged in ways that were difficult to handle. I was slated to be a laboratory assistant in the physiology class the next fall, and would have enjoyed that greatly, but I transferred to a Christian college (Houghton in New York), majoring in zoology along with minors in Bible and in chemistry. I obtained a BA degree in 1950, and in the summer of 1951 a BS degree, also in zoology, from another Christian college (Wheaton in Illinois). In the latter I expanded my science and theology backgrounds. Then I taught science to middle and high school level students for one year at the Ben Lippen School which was then in North Carolina. In 1952 I returned as a graduate student to the University of Massachusetts where I obtained teaching and research assistantships.

Change of View To my surprise I found myself in an experimental embryology course with Dr. Woodside, who now was Chairman of the Department of Zoology and of the Graduate School. I became captivated by Dr. Woodside and his field of embryology. I did research and wrote a master’s thesis on chick embryology and the first cancer-inhibiting drug, 8-azaguanine (see Frair and Woodside, 1956).

During my reading and research I became determined to plumb the depths of embryonic recapitulation, but to my utter amazement I learned from Dr. Woodside that the “biogenetic law” was dead! So the man who had convinced me of the importance of recapitulation when I was a freshman, then five years later was convincing me of the opposite. Dr. Woodside not only disbelieved it, but also he virtually despised it. Recapitulation no longer could be any more than a hypothesis at best, and he wanted me to have nothing to do with it.

Professor Woodside believed that embryology as a discipline was retarded because of recapitulation. He told me that by the mid-20th Century no informed embryologist could accept the recapitulation concept. Many investigators had given up their work in disgust because they ran into dead ends trying to fit their embryological data into an evolutionary context. Professor Woodside also believed that there had been only one Nobelist in embryology (Hans Spemann) because so many other good embryology investigators had been focusing on evolution and failing. An example of the many exceptions to the hypothesis of recapitulation is that in an evolution scheme the spinal cord is present before the brain, but in embryology the brain develops first. But, has not evolution been the thread that holds all of biology together? At least we knew 50 years ago, and still realize today, that Darwinian recapitulation is not part of any such thread (see Bergman, 1999; Wells, 1999a).

This is a complete misrepresentation of De Beer who actually wrote an 'Atlas of Evolution'. He proposed a variety of mechanisms of evolution, including heterochrony and paedomorphosis. Misrepresenting De Beer's views degrades whatever credibility your cite may have had.

joe g (quoting): "Science is a process"

Yes. As your cite to Berkeley University mentions, science is a process that "seeks to explain the natural world and its explanations are tested using evidence from the natural world," and that scientific claims are subject to peer review.

And they also indicate that "the most likely explanation (of specified biological similarities) is that these animals inherited similar organs through common ancestry. That is parsimony."

Again James Wynne is all bluster and no muster. And again he projects his stupidity onto others.

Perhaps James could turn to page 152 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":

"The occurrence of the same pentadactyl pattern in the fore- and hindlimbs presents an additional and unrelated challenge to evolutionary biology- that of explaining the independent origin of structures that are incredibly similar in terms of a random accumulation of tiny advantageous mutations."

Now James, what about that evolutionary research I asked you about but you keep avoiding?

As is common in science, not everything can be known. The original evolution of pentadactylism is still not fully understood. Pointing to gaps in knowledge to make an ulterior claim is a fallacy.

Ironically, pentadactylism represents very specific evidence in support of common descent. All tetrapods have limbs with five digits at some stage of development. For instance, avian embryos have five digits, but two are lost during development. Design has no answer for this, of course; but evolution posits them as genetic artifacts.

joe g: "If you think I am misrepresenting de Beer than demonstrate that. Just saying I did something is meaningless."

I did provide that information with cites to his Atlas and specifics concerning his posited evolutionary mechanisms. That you choose to ignore them is irrelevant.

De Beer pointed to areas of interest for future study, gaps in current understanding of evolutionary and embryonic development. He proposed that embryonic development held the key to how evolution modifies organisms over time. This hypothesis has been validated by decades of research since.

You're right that evolutionary scientists cannot provide a detailed account yet for the "major transition" from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. But they do have some explicit ideas about how it might have happened (e.g. endosymbiosis), and sooner or later data probably will be found that will tell us how credible these ideas are. At least there is nothing to suggest yet that those ideas are wrong. But what about the position of ID? What positive ideas have arisen from that line of thinking, except for simply claiming that something has been designed? Unless the designer makes herself known and shows us how she did it, how could this be tested? That's the main problem with ID, as I see it at least, it's totally negative. How does ID account for the transition to eukaryotes? Could ID come up with a prediction that could not have been made from a standard evolutionary point of view?

Endosymbiosis has NEVER been observed between prokaryotes. Never. All observed endosymbiosis never changes the "host" organism into something different- IOW nothing "evolved".

“Thus, Behe concludes on the basis of our knowledge of present cause-and-effect relationships (in accord with the standard uniformitarian method employed in the historical sciences) that the molecular machines and complex systems we observe in cells can be best explained as the result of an intelligent cause.In brief, molecular motors appear designed because they were designed” Pg. 72 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education"

IOW the design inference is based on what we do know about nature and designing agencies.

I notice you haven't answered my questions about the failure of ID to make positive predictions that would not have been predicted by evolutionary theory. That's what it takes for one theory to replace another.

How do you explain prokaryotic DNA and ribosomes within chloroplasts and mitochondria, if not via endosymbiosis?

I notice you haven't answered my questions about the failure of ID to make positive predictions that would not have been predicted by evolutionary theory. That's what it takes for one theory to replace another.

How do you explain prokaryotic DNA and ribosomes within chloroplasts and mitochondria, if not via endosymbiosis?

Raevmo:I notice you haven't answered my questions about the failure of ID to make positive predictions that would not have been predicted by evolutionary theory. That's what it takes for one theory to replace another.

I am still waiting to see what evolutionism "predicts". On the PBS series "Evolution" Dan DEnnett tells us "There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." Meaning evolutionism does not and cannot make any useful predictions.

However ID predicts IC and CSI.

Raevmo:How do you explain prokaryotic DNA and ribosomes within chloroplasts and mitochondria, if not via endosymbiosis?

LoL! Talk about a loaded question. The DNA in chloros and mitos just "looks" like it could be from some prok. And that is just in some cases- not all.

The funny part of this is that endo was first introduced evos scoffed at it. Now they just pull up and hitch a ride on it...

Test it Raevmo- find some proks that can gain a nucleus and engulf other proks. Or admit that it is beyond science and in the realm of faith.

joe g: "Endosymbiosis has NEVER been observed between prokaryotes. Never. All observed endosymbiosis never changes the "host" organism into something different- IOW nothing 'evolved'"

No one has observed a living Maiasaurus. However, there is significant fossil evidence they once roamed the Earth. There is significant genetic and microbiological evidence of endosymbiosis in early Eukaryote evolution.

Of course, that is immaterial to the common descent of Eukaryotes.

joe g: "I am still waiting to see what evolutionism 'predicts'."

The Theory of Evolution makes many predictions, including predicted intermediates between humans and apes. Johanson didn't look in his backyard. He looked in specific strata. Lucky guess?

The Theory of Evolution predicts the plausible characteristics of genomes not yet sequenced; predicts the plausible characteristics of yet to be discovered species, extinct and extant. And these predictions are falsifiable.

You really need to start with the basics. Do you still have difficulties with the scientific method itself? That assertions must be based in empirical evidence, and make falsifiable predictions? If you're okay with this, then proceed to the succession of fossils.

joe g: "Endosymbiosis has NEVER been observed between prokaryotes. Never. All observed endosymbiosis never changes the "host" organism into something different- IOW nothing 'evolved'"

Zach:No one has observed a living Maiasaurus. However, there is significant fossil evidence they once roamed the Earth.

That is evidence then isn't it. Proks engulfing proks and forming an endosymbiotic relationship doesn't even have that.

Try applying that scientific method you are so proud of.

Zach: There is significant genetic and microbiological evidence of endosymbiosis in early Eukaryote evolution.

That is just an assertion. There is also evidence that calls end into question.

joe g: "I am still waiting to see what evolutionism 'predicts'."

Zach:The Theory of Evolution makes many predictions, including predicted intermediates between humans and apes.

Common descent or the history of life may make such postdictions but the theory of evolution does not. And again ID is OK with common descent so even your post-diction is not exclusive to evolutionism.

Try a real prediction. One that has something to do with biology.

Why is it that we are afraid of birds? Because the theory of evolution is useless in making real predictions that could actually benefit us.

Fossils cannot tell us anything about a mechanism. Fossils cannot tell us the difference between phenotypical plasticity and a genetic mutation that causes a phenotype to change.Fossils cannot tell us the difference between convergent or divergent evolution.The fossil record favors stasis.Only a very small portion of the fossil record could even possibly suport common descent.Fossil succesion is more of "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't already believe it."

And no one knows how the fossil record was formed. It surely does scream of catastrophies- which knocks gradualism right on its butt.

joe g: "And again ID is OK with common descent so even your post-diction is not exclusive to evolutionism."

joe g: "Common descent is almost a proven fact? Sure if common descent is limited to a certain population."

The evidence clearly supports common descent of life over eons of time. Your own position has been inconsistent and it appears you want to have it both ways.

Concerning post-diction, I gave an example of pre-diction, Johanson's discovery of a species (Australopithecus afarensis) with intermediate (arm-leg ratio, brain-size, hand, gait) characteristics between early hominids and non-hominid apes. There are multitudes of such predictions made every day in paleontology, geology, genetics and biology concerning both extant and extinct organisms.

The early evolution of eukaryotes is still only partly understood, though current evidence strongly indicates endosymbiosis.

joe g: "Try applying that scientific method you are so proud of."

Endosymbiosis: "Chloroplast DNA, it turns out, was cyanobacterial DNA." But remember, the evidence for Common Descent of eukaryotes does not depend on the origin of eukaryotes.

joe g: "And no one knows how the fossil record was formed."

Waving your hands doesn't make the evidence go away. Geologists have determined that strata were laid down with embedded fossils over millions of years. This provides a record. Life today is nothing like life in the past. And this is the order of appearance along one such lineage: prokaryotes, eukaryotes, metazoans, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, apes, hominids, humans. This is fact. Any scientific theory explaining this biological change has to account for this.

Zach:The early evolution of eukaryotes is still only partly understood, though current evidence strongly indicates endosymbiosis.

This ties back to my OP- the theory of evo and our ignorance. You just keep confirming that fact. Thanks.

However I have also heard of scientists speculating that proks "devolved" from euks.

Chloroplasts just look like some specific bacteria. If that is a test then saying something looks designed is test enough for ID. Are you OK with that?

joe g: "And no one knows how the fossil record was formed."

Zach:Waving your hands doesn't make the evidence go away.

And your continued table pounding is not evidence of any kind.

Zach: Geologists have determined that strata were laid down with embedded fossils over millions of years.

This was determined? How? The record tells us of catastrophies. Catastrophies lay down sediment faster than mainstream geology says.

Not everything that has lived and died gets fossilized. Therefor absence of evidence is noit evidence of absence.

My stance on CD is that it can't be objectively tested. No one knows what makes an organism what it is. And without that knowledge everything else is just speculation based on a philosophical world view. IOW it ain't scientific.

joe g: "The evidence for CD is subjective at best. The premise (CD) cannot be objectively tested and cannot be verified."

That is incorrect. The nested hierarchy of descent is tested every time a new species is discovered, or a new genome sequenced.

joe g: "How does anyone know that what 'Lucy' was an intermediate betwwen humans and the chimp=human ancestor? We don't even know what that ancestor was!"

The claim was that Lucy was found in the predicted strata and had intermediate characteristics (arm-leg ratio, brain size, hands, gait). Again, it was a prediction.

Intelligent Design adherents do not make such discoveries. Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile.

joe g: "This was determined?"

By actually examining the evidence. The basic geology of the Earth was determined well before Darwin. Please note that for you to be right not only do biologists have to be wrong, but geologists, geneticists and paleontologists. And Johanson was just lucky to have thought that traveling half-way around the world to look in 3½ million year old strata might reveal remains of an organism with intermediate characteristics between hominids and other apes.

joe g: "My stance on CD is that it can't be objectively tested."

Then your stance is not based on empirical science. We can predict what will plausibly be found in the various strata. It is easy to verify. Just take a geological map of your area and compare it to what geologists have recorded. You might even find a few common fossils.

joe g: "The evidence for CD is subjective at best. The premise (CD) cannot be objectively tested and cannot be verified."

Zach:That is incorrect. The nested hierarchy of descent is tested every time a new species is discovered, or a new genome sequenced.

Again that only works in a limited fashion.

joe g: "How does anyone know that what 'Lucy' was an intermediate betwwen humans and the chimp=human ancestor? We don't even know what that ancestor was!"

Lucy:The claim was that Lucy was found in the predicted strata

LoL! The strata was dated by the fossils found!

Zach: and had intermediate characteristics (arm-leg ratio, brain size, hands, gait). Again, it was a prediction.

Again we don't know what the common ancestor was so we cannot know that "Lucy" had intermediate features.

Zach:Intelligent Design adherents do not make such discoveries.

Your ignorance of ID is not a refutation of it. IDists have made predictions. ID is based on empirical data.

Zach: Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile.

Only to people more interested in fantasy than reality.

And your continued reliance on the fossil record just shows how desperate your position is.

Zach:Please note that for you to be right not only do biologists have to be wrong, but geologists, geneticists and paleontologists.

LoL! There are plenty of IDists AND Creationists who are either biologist or geneticists! Geologists are so behind reality their "science" is laughable- remember geologists once "determined" the scablands were not the result of a massive and sudden flood and up until the 1960s their version of mountain building was a joke.

And again the fossil record tells us of catastrophies. Which blows away any argument for gradual deposits.

joe g: "And your continued reliance on the fossil record just shows how desperate your position is."

Extant organisms, embryonics and especially genomics are far more important evidence, but that would require a stronger scientific background than you have show thus far. The fossil evidence is far more direct. Everybody knows about dinosaurs, so everybody knows that ecosystems have changed dramatically over time.

joe g: "Your ignorance of ID is not a refutation of it. IDists have made predictions. ID is based on empirical data."

I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready. What *specific* observations do I make?